The Next Panama Crisis Isn`t Far Off

October 26, 1989|By Ashley C. Hewitt Jr.

President Bush has been battered from all directions because of his handling of the recent coup attempt in Panama. He has been chided in Congress by members of both parties, and media attention has been both sustained and negative. Columnists and commentators have had a field day with what has been described as the first foreign policy crisis of the administration.

Calling the Panama debacle the first foreign policy crisis of the Bush administration is a little like describing the Grenada operation as President Reagan`s greatest foreign policy success, and some of the criticism is overblown. Panama just isn`t up there with the Bay of Pigs, the Tonkin Gulf or the Iran hostage crisis. Still, if the confusion in finding the proper explanation for U.S. policy in Panama is an indication, there is plenty of blame to share.

The most pervasive theme in the administration`s explanations of what happened has been the absence of information. Either there wasn`t enough information about what was going on, or it was the wrong kind, or came at the wrong time-in short, the old ``intelligent failure`` ploy. To the degree intelligence was lacking, it is because we depended for years on ``liaison``

for information on events in Panama-that is, on Manuel Noriega himself, first as chief of intelligence of the Panama Defense Forces for 14 years, and then as their commander. This is the same mistake we made years ago in Iran, and with the same results when Noriega turned against us. But it isn`t clear that the administration would have done any better with more adequate intelligence.

Thus far the President`s hallmark has been caution that exceeds prudence and at times approaches mania. His performance in the recent Panama crisis underscores one of Henry Kissinger`s many maxims on the conduct of statecraft- if you act too early you risk doing so in ignorance of vital facts; but if you wait until you have all the facts you have probably lost the ability to influence the situation.

Given his need for complete information, President Bush can be comforted that he already knows exactly when, where and how the next Panama crisis is likely to take place. It will happen on Dec. 31, or a little before, and the action will take place not in the headquarters compound of the Panama Defense Forces but on the floor of the U.S. Senate. On this date the administrator of the Panama Canal Commission, currently a retired American general, is required by the Panama Canal Treaties to step down and be replaced by a Panamanian.

(The Panama Canal Commission is the operating entity of the canal.) Under the circumstances, the new Panamanian administrator of the canal will be a nominee of Gen. Noriega and, hence, beholden to him.

The trouble is that the treaties require that Panama`s nominee be presented to the U.S. Senate by the administration, and that the Senate ratify him as it would a candidate for a U.S. Cabinet position or ambassadorship. Presumably, the full panoply of committee hearings and floor debates will be required-and in a Senate controlled by the Democrats. Moreover, the new administrator will have to testify before the Senate at least annually on budgetary and operational matters as if he were a U.S. official, while being under the control of Noriega.

All of this catches George Bush in a forked stick. If he refuses to accept Noriega`s nomination for the new administrator and to convey it to the Senate in a timely fashion, he puts himself and the U.S. in direct violation of the treaties, something he has said he would never do. If he accepts Noriega`s nomination and sends it to the Senate, he looks rather silly, and kicks off a furious floor fight. Either way, he plays Noriega`s game by seeming to confirm his charges that the real intention of the United States is to undermine and ultimately abrogate the treaties, or by acknowledging the authority and legitimacy of Noriega`s puppet government through the acceptance of its nominee. Check and double check.

Meanwhile, the operating authority of the canal, which is still of vital economic and commercial importance to this country, and which continues to have considerable military significance as well, will be leaderless and torn in several directions.

It will be interesting to see how Bush handles a Panama crisis with all the advance warning and intelligence he could wish for.